Jump to content

Replies delayed from SpamCop


JulieD

Recommended Posts

I don't know if this is the right forum but I''m finding it very disheartening that my SC reports via MailWasher are taking up to 30 hours to be processed by SC and so my average reporting time has stayed at 9 hours for over 6 weeks, even though I cancel older reports and sometimes manually report newer ones - my average time was 5 hours at one time, before SC started having long acceptance delays. This morning, I sent about 25 reports via MW and I haven't had a single one accepted over 3 hours later when they used to be accepted within minutes. Every morning I send reports to SC via MW, hoping that there won't be yet another glitch and sure enough, I end up reporting newer spam manually because I thought that 1) the fresher the spam, the more use it might be and 2) my reporting time might come down :(

I'm beginning to ask myself is it worth the subscription I've just paid, especially when MW and FirstAlert shows up a great number of known spammers and blacklisted spammers day after day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Jeff - I can report manually with no problem and I'm almost sure that my acceptance emails will come in late tonight or tomorrow (I'm in the UK). So I'll I'll just have to report most of it manually and do a 'test run' very now and then to see if or when SC is responding. It's only when I get no response that I realise it's not working again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JulieD,

While you are waiting for your acceptance emails to come back, have you tried going to the reporting page and seeing if there is a “Report Now” link you can click?

Can you paste here the headers of a recently successfully submitted email (both the headers for your submission and the headers for the acceptance email)? Of course, you should munge your email and submission addresses. :)

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not seeing any delay this morning.

Message emailed at: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 07:40:12 -0500

Reply received at: 02 Mar 2005 04:43:09 -0800 = 07:43:09 -0500

Return-Path: <spamid.737846695<at>bounces.spamcop.net>
Delivered-To: spamcop-net-underwood<at>spamcop.net
Received: (qmail 7949 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2005 12:43:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
  by blade3.cesmail.net with QMQP; 2 Mar 2005 12:43:10 -0000
Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net (64.74.133.248)
  by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 2 Mar 2005 12:43:09 -0000
Received: from sc-app6.eq.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net) (192.168.19.206)
  by vmx1.spamcop.net with SMTP; 02 Mar 2005 04:43:09 -0800
From: SpamCop AutoResponder <spamcop<at>devnull.spamcop.net>
To: underwood<at>spamcop.net
Subject: SpamCop has accepted 1 email for processing
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:43:09 GMT
Message-ID: <spamid737846695<at>msgid.spamcop.net>
Content-type: text/plain
In-Reply-To: <20050302074012.dmzk00owoko840w0<at>webmail.spamcop.net>
References: <20050302074012.dmzk00owoko840w0<at>webmail.spamcop.net>
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on blade3.cesmail.net
X-spam-Level: 
X-spam-Status: hits=-98.6 tests=AWL,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,USER_IN_WHITELIST 
	version=3.0.0
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.103 64.74.133.248 192.168.19.206 
X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: devnull.spamcop.net

SpamCop is now ready to process your spam.

Use links to finish spam reporting (members use cookie-login please!):
http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z737846695z573bb5ffa7cbc7b56fd3c9be3e22aa56z


The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers:
 Return-Path: <Underwood+Steve<at>spamcop.net>
Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net (sc-smtp2.eq.ironport.com [192.168.18.82])
	by sc-app6.eq.ironport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C161FBBB
	for <submit.x<at>spam.spamcop.net>; Wed,  2 Mar 2005 04:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c60.cesmail.net (216.154.195.49)
  by vmx2.spamcop.net with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2005 04:40:11 -0800
Received: from unknown (HELO gamma.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.20)
  by c60.cesmail.net with SMTP; 02 Mar 2005 07:40:13 -0500
Received: (qmail 2287 invoked by uid 99); 2 Mar 2005 12:40:12 -0000
Received: from kopinproxy.kopin.com (kopinproxy.kopin.com [199.79.137.84])
	by webmail.spamcop.net (Horde) with HTTP for
	<underwood<at>spamcop.net<at>cesmail.net>; Wed,  2 Mar 2005 07:40:12 -0500
Message-ID: <20050302074012.dmzk00owoko840w0<at>webmail.spamcop.net>
Date: Wed,  2 Mar 2005 07:40:12 -0500
From: "Steven P. Underwood" <Underwood+Steve<at>spamcop.net>
To: submit <submit.x<at>spam.spamcop.net>
Subject: Fwd: Re[7]: question with your health
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_24cn4ixdo8ww"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs

*Moderator hat* Split thread out to new discussion in Reporting Help forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this right??

Return-Path: <spamid.737464766#bounces.spamcop.net>

Received: from mwinf3216.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3216.me.freeserve.com)

by mwinb3004 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:49:12 +0100

X-Sieve: Server Sieve 2.2

Received: from me-wanadoo.net (mail.diktator.de [127.0.0.1])

by mwinf3216.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E9CBB1C00BEC

for Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:49:11 +0100 (CET)

Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net (vmx2.spamcop.net [64.74.133.250])

by mwinf3216.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 96EC11C00BEA

for <ebay#dennison610.fslife.co.uk>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:49:11 +0100 (CET)

X-ME-UUID: 20050301084911618.96EC11C00BEA#mwinf3216.me.freeserve.com

Received: from sc-app3.eq.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net) (192.168.19.203)

by vmx2.spamcop.net with SMTP; 01 Mar 2005 00:49:10 -0800

From: SpamCop AutoResponder <spamcop#devnull.spamcop.net>

Subject: SpamCop has accepted 1 email for processing

Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:49:10 GMT

Message-ID: <spamid737464766#msgid.spamcop.net>

In-Reply-To: <E1D631a-0008AS-Ug.2005-03-01-08-46-39#cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk>

References: <E1D631a-0008AS-Ug.2005-03-01-08-46-39#cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk>

X-me-spamlevel: not-spam

X-me-spamrating: 5.811557

X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.0.300 [266.5.2]

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain

SpamCop is now ready to process your spam.

Use links to finish spam reporting (members use cookie-login please!):

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z737464766za1...4586e718a0e533z

The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers:

Return-Path:

Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net (sc-smtp2.eq.ironport.com [192.168.18.82])

by sc-app3.eq.ironport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352C31435A

for <submit.x#spam.spamcop.net>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 00:46:40 -0800 (PST)

Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (195.92.195.172)

by vmx2.spamcop.net with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2005 00:46:39 -0800

Received: from user-5766.l6.c2.dsl.pol.co.uk ([84.66.118.134])

by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14)

id 1D631a-0008AS-Ug

for submit.x#spam.spamcop.net; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:39 +0000

Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.300 [266.5.2]); Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:38 +0000

x-mailer: mailwasher

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Message-Id: <E1D631a-0008AS-Ug.2005-03-01-08-46-39#cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk>

Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:39 +0000

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

*Moderator* Edited text to replace secret code with x and all [at] with #.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StevenUnderwood, thanks for splitting this topic out.

JulieD, it appears that for that submission, from your point of view, you submitted the spam via email at 08:46:39 +0000 (GMT, local time in Britain during non-Summer), and you got the response 2 minutes 33 seconds later at 09:49:12 +0100 (BST, British Summer Time, local time in Britain during Summer and WET, Western Europe Time during non-Summer). That doesn't strike me as much of a delay. Also, please be more careful not to put confidential info like your email address and your submission address out here on the web. Thanks!

P.S. Thanks for the munging! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I should have said was that that was the last acceptance I had from SC which was on time - all the rest I deleted late last night as they were showing a delay of between 24-30 hours when I looked at the reporting time and I had reported them a lot sooner than that. And sorry about the email address, I thought I had removed it all, but obviously not.

I reported 27 spam emails to SC this morning and I haven't received a single acceptance email - that's my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like those 27 got lost. If I were you, I'd resubmit a few, and if they still don't show up, proceed with Step 4 near the bottom of Emailed spam Submissions Disappearing? No Confirmation e-mails?. You could also ask Energis, Wanadoo/Freeserve, and diktator if they're blocking your submission or confirmation emails. Please let us know what happens. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Steven and Jeff - I've been reporting all spam manually all day but I just tried an automated submission and I got an acceptance email for that. In the morning, I'll send one report and then see if that comes straight back as accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Return-Path: <spamid.738012124[at]bounces.spamcop.net>

Received: from mwinf3208.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3208.me.freeserve.com)

by mwinb3004 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:23:07 +0100

X-Sieve: Server Sieve 2.2

Envelope-to:

Received: from me-wanadoo.net (mail.aadmail.com

by mwinf3208.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 006981C00A0B

for <>; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:23:07 +0100 (CET)

Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net (vmx2.spamcop.net

by mwinf3208.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 35F711C00A13

for <>; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:23:04 +0100 (CET)

X-ME-UUID:

Received: from sc-app6.eq.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net) (192.168.19.206)

by vmx2.spamcop.net with SMTP; 02 Mar 2005 14:23:04 -0800

From: SpamCop AutoResponder <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net>

To:

Subject: SpamCop has accepted 1 email for processing

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:23:03 GMT

Message-ID:

In-Reply-To: <3or8ch$tn0hjp[at]vmx1.spamcop.net>

References: <3or8ch$tn0hjp[at]vmx1.spamcop.net>

X-me-spamlevel: not-spam

X-me-spamrating: 4.526863

X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.0.300 [266.5.2]

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain

SpamCop is now ready to process your spam.

Use links to finish spam reporting (members use cookie-login please!):

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z738012124z27...f887bcaac65c24z

The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers:

Return-Path: <>

Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net (sc-smtp1.eq.ironport.com [192.168.18.81])

by sc-app6.eq.ironport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85181FBC6

for <>; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:19:05 -0800 (PST)

Received: from cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk

by vmx1.spamcop.net with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2005 14:19:05 -0800

Message-Id: <3or8ch$tn0hjp[at]vmx1.spamcop.net>

Received: from user

by cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.41)

id 1D6QY1-0004Jy-1b

for <>; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:53:41 +0000

Received:

From:

x-mailer: mailwasher

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:19:05 -0800 (PST)

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

I received this a few minutes ago and when I went to finish reporting, I got a message that the spam is 15 hours old! This is exactly what I was trying to explain earlier - I sent this spam to SC at 09:53 GMT. I hope I've removed what I should have :) I'm going to bed now so I'll look for any reply in the morning

Julie

*Moderator* removed two instances of your submit address from the "The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers:" part of the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Someone sheck my time conversions (in parens) but this is what I come up with:

Received: from mwinf3208.me.freeserve.com by mwinb3004; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:23:07 +0100 (22:23)
Received: from me-wanadoo.net by mwinf3208.me.freeserve.com; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:23:07 +0100 (22:23)
Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net by mwinf3208.me.freeserve.com; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:23:04 +0100 (22:23)
Received: from sc-app6.eq.ironport.com by vmx2.spamcop.net with SMTP; 02 Mar 2005 14:23:04 -0800 (22:23)

The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers:
Received: from vmx1.spamcop.net by sc-app6.eq.ironport.com; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:19:05 -0800 (22:19)
Received: from cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk by vmx1.spamcop.net; 02 Mar 2005 14:19:05 -0800 (22:19)
Received: from user by cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:53:41 +0000 (09:53)

Which is showing that while your ISP server (cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk) accepted your message at 9:53 AM, spamcop did not receive it until 10:19 PM. Also, since there are not a whole lot of other people in here complaining of the same thing, I would say your ISP was having problems. It is possible that spamcop was having problems receiving messages, but I would expect more complainers if that were the cause. If you can confirm this with your ISP, that would be great. They may need the headers you posted here to track the message and the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help - I'll now crawl back under my rock as I obviously don't know enough about a service I thought would be useful. If my ISP is delaying my reports, it's not very useful is it? And no wonder my reporting time is staying the same!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't worry about your reporting time - it's widely considered bogus, plus some complaints suggest that it discriminates against those in zero and positive time zones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that some spammers and spam support racketeers get paid for their parts in some of the following:

  • the mailing, whether or not it brings in income
  • each lead that comes in
  • their percentage of the workload in the racket (net, gross, or a combination)
  • providing services to facilitate spam (IP connectivity, dns, web, email, etc.)
  • scraping email addresses to spam from websites and newsgroups
  • shielding, protecting, and defending each other
  • maintaining apathetic, underpaid, understaffed, and/or underempowered abuse desks
  • making sweetheart deals with each other
  • lobbying to thwart truly effective anti-spam legislation, and instead providing the practically unenforceable atrocity called CAN-spam
  • lobbying to thwart the taking of responsibility for Domains and IP Address Ranges, causing the IETF to adopt the atrocity called RFC3912

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...